The Instigator
OpheliasWaters
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
asta
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

An enforced majority government

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 377 times Debate No: 115380
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

OpheliasWaters

Pro

Without one political party having the majority, governments usually consist of two large parties, which will consistently disagree with one another. This, in effect, prevents either party passing their motion, since the other will attempt to veto it. As a result, the government is unable to effectively react to the current situation.
If, as opposed to the present system in most large democratic nations, whereby the government is split into two, the number of seats granted to the leading party gave them the power to determine the state's response to its environment. This would enable a more efficient, dynamic government which would have the capacity to bring about the changes required by the nation to advance itself.
Obviously the main argument against this point is that the people are no longer being proportionally represented. However, an elimination process could be used to remove minor parties in favour of the voter's next choice, until one party has more than half of the seats. In this way the voter is still represented, possibly not as well as before, but since no party is capable of perfectly fitting everyone's needs, this should not be a very large problem. This method creates a strong central government that has the power to give the people what they want and fulfill the nation's goal.

Yours,
Solomon
asta

Con

This is tyranny of the mjority and will lead to sepratist movements from the minor parties. This is essentially Communism/Facism; one party rule. If the Far left Democrats(or the Far right Replublicans) have one party rule, this will infringe on the rights of the oppressed parties. Things would get done, but by extreme measures that most people wouldn't support.

If the Democrats were given one party rule, the tax rate would be at 75%, abortion would be legal under all situations, misgendering someone would be a crime. If the Far right was in charge, then Atheism would be illegal, there would be combination of Curch and state(to an extent), abortion would be illegal, there would be an equitible tax and more. Although I like many of the Far right bullet points, most people in the country wouldn't.
Debate Round No. 1
OpheliasWaters

Pro

On the contrary to your suggestion, the more extreme parties would be eliminated earliest as, while they are some people's first choice, they are also inevitably other people's last. Somebody who voted republican, for example, would most likely want any other party before democrats.
I believe that this would see the rise of progressive, reactionary governments who would benefit most people, being part way between the extremes. More would get done as you said, but since this method selects a party that the majority are, at the very least, contented, no particular group is neglected.
asta

Con

"On the contrary to your suggestion, the more extreme parties would be eliminated earliest as, while they are some people's first choice, they are also inevitably other people's last." That isisn't always true. John Kacish would rather have Hilliary as President then Steve Bannon, even though Kacish and Bannon are on the right and Hilliary is on the left.

"More would get done as you said, but since this method selects a party that the majority are, at the very least, contented, no particular group is neglected." A progressie party is not connected with replublicans. More would get done but according to Replublicans, the things that are done won't be good things.

What your supporting is utilitarianism: The belief that what the government should do is make the majority of the population happy, even if a minority is unhappy. If this is your ideology, would 99% of the population enslaving the unlucky 1% be justified? According to Utilitarianism, it would be okay if a majority of people care more about themselves then a stranger (most humans are like this). However, the United States is a replublic, which (should) aim to protect the rights of oppressed humans.

Things already get done in the White House. Donald trump and congress has done the following. Even if you disaggree or believe Obama did it, it still are the things that the white house has gotten done:

-Lower taxes
-Lowest unemployment rate in history,
-stricter border security
- the almost complete destruction of ISIS
-Repaired relations with Russia, and so on.
Debate Round No. 2
OpheliasWaters

Pro

I am not suggesting that the minority be enslaved or even ignored, but much more progress could be made with a majority government. Also, this argument doesn't need to be applied to the US, since you have a majority government in power. In other countries this is not the case, so, unlike America, they can't get things done.
asta

Con

The US government did got all of that stuff done in 18 months alone. They did more. There is even a new amendment in the constitution that is wanting to be made, and it has a lot of support(https://www.cnn.com...) I don't aggree with it, I think it infringes on religious freedom but it is still something leftist that is getting done.

Foreign governments may get more done, but if the things they are getting done ideologically oppress a big group of the population without comprimises, then is getting things done a good thing if it's oppressful?
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by OpheliasWaters 3 years ago
OpheliasWaters
Shame.
Posted by asta 3 years ago
asta
This, like most of my debate probably will end in a tie.
Posted by OpheliasWaters 3 years ago
OpheliasWaters
The Nazi party came into power through propoganda funded by the middle class who feared communist revolution, emergency powers from the Enabling Act due to the Reichstag Fire and also Hitler's promotion into high positions in the government because Hindenburg thought that doing so would increase his control over the Nazis. The Weimar Republic (Germany prior to the Third Reich) did not use the system that I have suggested, rather the proportional representation system which I have made a case against.

I will happily accept that my suggestion is flawed or impractical as I am not particularly experienced in such matters, but I am not advocating an authoritarian regime.
Posted by 3dogsandaguy 3 years ago
3dogsandaguy
You know that system is how nazi germany came to be?
Posted by 3dogsandaguy 3 years ago
3dogsandaguy
You know that system is how nazi germany came to be?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.